MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756034218 · doi:10.2151/sola.2017-031

Validation of GOSAT SWIR XCO<sub>2</sub> and XCH<sub>4</sub> Retrieved by PPDF-S Method and Comparison with Full Physics Method

2017· article· en· W2756034218 on OpenAlexaff
Chisa Iwasaki, Ryoichi Imasu, Аndrey Bril, Tatsuya Yokota, Yukio Yoshida, Isamu Morino, Sergey Oshchepkov, Debra Wunch, David Griffith, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Rigel Kivi, David F. Pollard, Coleen M. Roehl, Voltaire A. Velazco, Ralf Sussmann, Thorsten Warneke, Justus Notholt

Bibliographic record

VenueSOLA · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceJet Propulsion LaboratoryUniversity of Tokyo
KeywordsAerosolStandard deviationMethaneSatelliteEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasRemote sensingCarbon fibersAtmospheric sciencesPhysicsMeteorologyComputational physicsChemistryMathematicsGeologyStatisticsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Column-averaged concentrations of carbon dioxide (XCO2) and methane (XCH4) were retrieved from spectra observed by the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) using the so-called Photon path length Probability Density Function-Simultaneous (PPDF-S) retrieval method, which explains cloud/aerosol effects in terms of light path modification. The PPDF-S data, as well as the standard products for General Users (GU) of XCO2 and XCH4 retrieved using the full physics (FP) method, were validated through comparison with Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) data. Results show that bias and its standard deviation of XCO2 over the land are 0.73 and 1.83 ppm for the PPDF-S data, and −0.32 and 2.16 ppm for GU products. For XCH4, they are 1.4 and 14.1 ppb, and −1.9 and 12.5 ppb, respectively. Although the magnitude relations between XCO2 and XCH4 retrieved by the PPDF-S and GU products are identical over the land, they differ over the ocean. This fact emphasizes the importance of additional validation data over the ocean. Results also show that 68% of FP data that were screened out through an Aerosol Optical Thickness (AOT) test passed all screening tests for the PPDF-S method, implying the applicability of the PPDF-S method to denser aerosol conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSOLASame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207